Mac said:
If the place is part of the corporate body name, obviously a
geographical qualifier is not needed for the name used as an entry. If
removing that geographic name for a cross reference, should it not
then be a qualifier at the end of the shorter form of the name?
Exactly. And
On 04/11/2013 22.49, Brenndorfer, Thomas wrote:
snip
If catalogs can't take people to authority records (and some can), Wikipedia
doesn't seem to mind. It's just a question of programmers matching the data to
the users. Here are some examples of what's possible when one sees the forest
of
Following this lively discussion, I find it harder and harder to make up
my own mind...
With persons, I believe that (as I've said before) using dates as a
means of distinction doesn't really help a lot. And as long as the data
from the authority record is easily accessible (which it is in
Heidrun said:
The thing which triggered of my initial question were references from
shorter forms of the name.
If the place is part of the corporate body name, obviously a
geographical qualifier is not needed for the name used as an entry. If
removing that geographic name for a cross
-Original Message-
From: J. McRee Elrod [mailto:m...@slc.bc.ca]
Sent: November-04-13 3:50 PM
To: Brenndorfer, Thomas
Cc: RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Qualifying access points
Thomas said:
I already make extensive use of that data in the new RDA-based MARC
5 matches
Mail list logo